On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 04:12:24PM -0500, Noel Chiappa allegedly wrote:
>>> locators are a lot easier to deal with if they're
>>> location-independent
>> Huh? Did you mean "identifiers are a lot easier to deal with
>> if they're location-independent"?
> I really was talking about locators, not identifiers.
Now that I understand what you actually meant, I'm not freaked out!
However, you phrased your point in a way that almost guaranteed
confusion!
You didn't mean "locators are a lot easier to deal with if the name
has nothing to do with where the thing it names is", you meant
"locators are a lot easier to deal with if their meaning (i.e. the
thing they are bound to) is the same no matter where you are when
you evaluate them".
This is a problem for PIP-like schemes and mobility. At any point in
the network, the locator to use to reach a particular target is
unique. However, the locator to use to reach a particular target is
different at every point. That would be okay except that when *I*
move, the way I address a target changes. That's more of a problem
than having to adjust as my target moves.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf